The proposed ballot initiative from San Diego State University supporters to take over the former Qualcomm Stadium site poses major concerns of continuing city control, according to a 15-page opinion released Monday from City Attorney Mara Elliott’s office.

The initiative, sponsored by the recently formed Friends of SDSU group, is headed toward likely City Council approval this month to place it on the Nov. 6 ballot. The measure envisions a new 35,000-seat Aztecs football stadium, usable for other sports. The measure also includes an academic campus shared with commercial office tenants, student and faculty housing, hotels, retail and a San Diego River park.

SoccerCity unveiled last year by La Jolla-based FS Investors, has already been scheduled for the same ballot to redevelop the same site in a similar mixed-use fashion. Its 23,500-seat soccer-focused stadium could be expanded to accommodate the Aztecs, although SDSU has so far rejected any partnership.

The measure that receives majority city voter support and the most yes votes would win.

Elliott’s office issued a similar analysis of SoccerCity in a 20-page memo last May and followed the same format for the SDSU West initiative. The university has released a conceptual plan for the property but cannot take a public position on either measure.

“The initiative is difficult to analyze because there are so many uncertainties,” wrote Leslie FitzGerald, senior chief deputy city attorney who signed the memo to Mayor Kevin Faulconer and the council.

But she concluded that if the city sells the site to the state, it would lose control over the property where the stadium, formerly used by the Chargers until they moved to Los Angles last year, was built in 1967.

“The city has no jurisdiction over SDSU now or as a result of the initiative,” FitzGerald wrote. “Therefore, if the existing stadium site is sold to SDSU, the city’s development regulations and processes would not apply, regardless of the terms of the initiative.”

Kim Kilkenny, spokesman for the Friends of SDSU steering committee, said the memo did not raise any unexpected issues that cannot be handled in a sales contract between the city and the university.

“The city does have the power to contract with the state and the state has the power to contract with the city,” said Kilkenny, a nonpracticing attorney who has worked for developers and previously headed the city’s downtown planning agency.

The SDSU proposal envisions the city selling 132 acres to the university. SoccerCity would buy just under 80 acres and lease the balance of 232 acres in and around the stadium for parkland and other purposes.

FitzGerald listed six outstanding issues, some similar to those identified for SoccerCity:

The buyer could be the university or a “nongovernmental entity,” such as an SDSU affiliate like its Campanile Foundation, or subsequent private buyers of what would become state-owned property. Kilkenny said SDSU intends to lease not sell building plots to private developers.

The terms of a purchase and sale agreement are unknown because they would not be ironed out until after the election.

The development plan, which would be the responsibility of SDSU and California State University trustees, also would not be written until after the election.

The environmental review, which would identify traffic impacts and mitigation measures, also won’t be conducted until after the election.

The “remedies available” to dealing with noncompliance issues are unclear. For example, the initiative says a river park is desirable on adjacent land that would remain in city hands. But details are not spelled out on planning, building and maintaining the park and a seven-year buildout is contingent on reaching a sales agreement that has no target date.

The state’s development regulations and processes, not the city’s, would govern the site planning and implementation.

One item of concern raised the question of who would pay for soil contamination cleanup that is not already covered by a settlement agreement between the city and Kinder-Morgan Energy Partners. The company operates the fuel tank farm north of the stadium where leaks onto the stadium property were discovered and cleaned up.

“If contamination is discovered during the development of the site, it is not certain that the city could require Kinder-Morgan to perform or fund any required remediation under the Kinder-Morgan agreement,” FitzGerald said. “This uncertainty could lead to litigation between SDSU et al. and the city, as well as between the city and Kinder-Morgan. Even if the city ultimate prevailed, the litigation costs could be significant.”

Kilkenny said the sales agreement will include an indemnification clause so the city would not be on the hook for new cleanup costs.

The sale price has not yet been set but a previous appraisal related to SoccerCity’s proposal for a somewhat larger site valued the land at $82.8 million.

“We have no reason to expect the dollar amounts discussed would be any different," Kilkenny said.

The city, as well as SDSU, should be eager to reach agreement if the voters approve the ballot measure, Kilkenny said, because the city continues to incur at least $7 million in annual operational costs and SDSU wants a new Aztec stadium and place to grow.

However, FitzGerald pointed out that the SDSU initiative does not include a reversionary clause that would undo the sale if all the redevelopment projects mentioned in the measure don’t occur. Also unclear is what leeway the city would have in dealing with agreements between the university and private developers.

A retail and office complex would be located just south of a professional soccer stadium where the crowd of fans are gathered in this rendering.

A retail and office complex would be located just south of a professional soccer stadium where the crowd of fans are gathered in this rendering. (Gensler)

SoccerCity spokesman Nick Stone said the city attorney analysis “exposes” what he called “empty promises” from the developers who are among the Friends of SDSU group.

“It’s clearer than ever that the so-called SDSU West initiative, while hiding behind the university’s name, is really about protecting the interests of Mission Valley land barons on the backs of San Diego taxpayers,” Stone said in a statement. “SoccerCity will transform what’s now a drain on the city’s finances into something for all San Diegans: a new Major League Soccer and Aztec football stadium, sports-and-entertainment district, a large river park, and room for SDSU to grow — all without a dime of taxpayer money."

The SDSU initiative promises no general fund taxpayer money for its project, but Kilkenny said taxpayer money in the form of state and federal grants might be sought to cover construction of the river park and 22 acres of neighborhood parks.

Other taxpayer funds —such as developer impact fees, maintenance assessments and other user charges — are also possible under both developments to help cover infrastructure costs, the two sides have agreed.

San Diego has agreed to sell 16 lots in Nestor for $1 each, in the pursuit of affordable housing. The nonprofit San Diego Community Land Trust plans to build three and four-bedroom homes there for people with moderate incomes. That means a family of five with an income of up to $102,750.

San Diego has agreed to sell 16 lots in Nestor for $1 each, in the pursuit of affordable housing. The nonprofit San Diego Community Land Trust plans to build three and four-bedroom homes there for people with moderate incomes. That means a family of five with an income of up to $102,750.

CAPTION

San Diego has agreed to sell 16 lots in Nestor for $1 each, in the pursuit of affordable housing. The nonprofit San Diego Community Land Trust plans to build three and four-bedroom homes there for people with moderate incomes. That means a family of five with an income of up to $102,750.

San Diego has agreed to sell 16 lots in Nestor for $1 each, in the pursuit of affordable housing. The nonprofit San Diego Community Land Trust plans to build three and four-bedroom homes there for people with moderate incomes. That means a family of five with an income of up to $102,750.

CAPTION

Toys R Us still sells about 20% of the toys bought in the U.S., according to an analyst at Jefferies LLC.

Toys R Us still sells about 20% of the toys bought in the U.S., according to an analyst at Jefferies LLC.

CAPTION

Amazon's short list of cities for its second headquarters includes New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Austin, Atlanta and Miami.

Amazon's short list of cities for its second headquarters includes New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Austin, Atlanta and Miami.

CAPTION

Electric vehicles and hybrids are among the 400 makes and models on display at this year's San Diego International Auto Show.

Electric vehicles and hybrids are among the 400 makes and models on display at this year's San Diego International Auto Show.

CAPTION

If the deal is successful, Aetna would gain more information on patients by having access to data from CVS clinics and retail counters. (Dec. 4, 2017)

If the deal is successful, Aetna would gain more information on patients by having access to data from CVS clinics and retail counters. (Dec. 4, 2017)